The NSW Law Society has backed down in an extraordinary row over same-sex marriage by issuing a statement appeasing members who oppose a change in the law by clarifying its public support for the move does not represent the views of each of its 30,000 members.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The society, which is the professional body for the state's solicitors, came under sustained fire from a small but vocal group of members who condemned it for issuing a joint press release with the NSW Bar Association and state division of the Australian Medical Association backing a change to the Marriage Act.
Led by Sydney law firm partner Robin Speed of tax advisory firm Speed & Stracey, the group circulated a requisition last month for an extraordinary general meeting to vote on a series of resolutions, including that the Law Society be "censured" for "incorrectly holding out that all solicitors in NSW had united in supporting marriage equality laws".
On September 28, the group secured the required 250 signatures to trigger the meeting.
The president of the Law Society, Pauline Wright, met with Mr Speed - the founder of the Rule of Law Institute - and reached a compromise which included the release of a statement on Thursday making it clear the society does not speak for individual members.
"In light of concerns raised with her that the press release held out that solicitors had formed a united view on same-sex marriage, the president wishes to state that they have not," the Law Society said in the statement.
"There has been no survey or poll of solicitors on the issue. The views expressed were those of a majority of the Council of the Law Society, and not those of the members."
The society said it encouraged members to vote in the same-sex marriage postal survey "whatever their views on the issue of same-sex marriage", noting that "equality is not an absolute".
The law society, through its 22-member governing body known as its council, regularly adopts a position on policy issues without consulting each of its members.
Ms Wright said she was "confident" the society "would have readily obtained the support necessary to prevail should an extraordinary general meeting have been requisitioned".
All members would have been permitted to vote at the meeting in person or via proxy.
However, Ms Wright said "a meeting of that sort and the debate it would generate ... would have been divisive and potentially distressing to many of our members".
She said a majority of the council had resolved this year to support laws to enable same-sex marriage, in line with its published policy position since 2012.
Mr Speed had also called on the society to set up a committee of three solicitors chosen by him and his supporters to advise it on any changes to the law including "safeguards which should be put in place to respect aspirations to equality and to protect and guarantee freedom of speech, conscience, thought, religion, association, assembly, expression and other essential freedoms and rights".
The law society capitulated by setting up two parallel working groups, one headed by Mr Speed and one to be appointed by Ms Wright in consultation with the society's Diversity and Inclusion and Human Rights Committees.
The committees will "carefully scrutinise any draft legislation which ultimately becomes available to ensure that the proposed change does not have any adverse impact on religious or other traditional freedoms we presently enjoy".
Mr Speed said he was pleased with the outcome, and that "with the emotions in the debate it is necessary that we stand back and work on a solution".
